Want to Purchase Springfield M1A in NY State But It Comes With 10 Round Magazine?

So as far as I can tell, the Springfield M1A, in its basic form, is not considered an "assault weapon" by the new NY SAFE Act, as it has only a detachable magazine, but otherwise, no pistol grip, no folding or telescoping stock, no flash suppressor, no bayonet lug, etc...however on the website, it says it comes with a ten round magazine. These are now illegal in NY state (well after I think April 14th they become illegal). Thing is, am I thus unable to purchase this rifle now, or could I ask the company to send it with a five round magazine instead (I'd imagine they have five rounder mags, I doubt they'd have seven)?

If you want it buy it and join the activists fighting the ban. There is no way that ban is constitutional. Might take awhile to get its way through court but you have a good reason now to research the people who made and passed the law and to campaign for those who will support your rights not try and take them away. Don't just quietly submit to the draconian abuses, speak up and fight it.

__________________
Good intentions will always be pleaded for any assumption of power. The Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern will, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.
--Daniel Webster--

Yes, but it's not being constitutional doesn't mean it will be ruled un-constitutional. The Court was 9-0 on the issue in DC v Heller regarding whether or not the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, yet four of the justices still claimed the Washington, D.C. gun ban was constitutional essentially because, as they saw it, the Second Amendment no longer applied in modern society. So the ruling was 5-4 in that sense. And it was 5-4 in Chicago.

On the NY ban, provided none of the conservative justices dies any time soon (as they are getting old), it might get ruled 5-4 on the hand gun issue, but on the AR-15 aspect, which IMO is blantantly un-Constitutional as the ruling in DC v Heller specifically said that the word "arms" in the Second Amendment protects weapons in common usage among the citizens (which would include the AR-15 in particular, which also has nothing special about it as far as guns go), I think it would be a long-shot.

I could very much imagine a 5-4 ruling in which the magazine limitation part of the law is shot down as it bans too many hand guns, but where they uphold the AR-15 ban part of the law, unless the lawyers arguing the case are smart enough to point out that the AR-15 part of the ban is also un-Constitutional as well. I have lost some faith in the gun rights community though after watching the hearings on Capitol Hill recently where it seems even a lot of the gun rights people (LaPierre for example) seem to lack basic knowledge about how to defend the AR-15.

A fellow from the New York gun rights group was on Guntalk, last Sunday.
I think he said that the way the law was written, a ten round mag only loaded to seven was legal.
And it could still be loaded to ten at a match or at a range.
But not anywhere else.

Thanks, but my understanding is that only ten round magazines a person currently owns can be loaded to seven rounds. Any further magazine purchases, after April 14th, must be seven rounds or less. I e-mailed Springfield's customer service on this, will see if they write back.

The restriction on 7 rounds in the mag goes into effect in Mar I believe. Magazines of more than 7 rounds but less than 11 (the way it's worded in the law believe it or not) are legal if they are currently owned as long as you only put 7 rounds in the mag. As for buying the rifle, now is the time to do it because very shortly you won't be able to buy magazines that hold more than 7 rounds. You can purchase them up until Jan 2014 I believe but you can verify that by calling the hotline 1(855)LAW-Guns. They should be able to answer your question for sure, you could also try the NY SAFE act FAQ on line

It was always my understanding that even if the justices rule that a 7rd mag is un-constitutional a state can declare that it is constitutional within that state. If the justices rule that a 30rd mag is un-constitutional any state can declare that a 30rd mag IS contitutional within that state. The fed goverment does not always have sovereignty over it's states only in certain matters. It is "the will of the people" of that state that will determine what is constitutional and un-constitutional within their state.

This email link is to reach site administrators for assistance, if you cannot access TFL via other means. If you are a TFL member and can access TFL, please do not use this link; instead, use the forums (like Questions, Suggestions, and Tech Support) or PM an appropriate mod or admin.

If you are experiencing difficulties posting in the Buy/Sell/Trade subforums of TFL, please read the "sticky" announcement threads at the top of the applicable subforum. If you still feel you are qualified to post in those subforums, please contact "Shane Tuttle" (the mod for that portion of TFL) via Private Message for assistance.

This email contact address is not an "Ask the Firearms Expert" service. Such emails will be ignored. If you have a firearm related question, please register and post it on the forums.